Tax officers must explore alternative Section 169 service modes when portal notices go unanswered.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 11 December 2023 and a consequential DRC-07 order dated 13 December 2023.

The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and consequently did not file a reply.

The petitioner also contended that no personal hearing had been given and that it had paid approximately 65% of the disputed tax.

The first respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and sought remand.

The petitioner sought to set aside the orders and obtain an opportunity to respond.

Whether the assessment and consequential order should be set aside and remitted where the petitioner received no personal hearing, despite notices having been uploaded to the GST portal.

Whether the tax officer should have explored other modes of service under Section 169(1) of the GST Act after the petitioner did not respond to portal notices.

Whether the bank-account attachment could continue after the impugned orders were set aside.

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service by uploading a notice to the GST portal and service by registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD).

Although portal service is a sufficient mode, the Court held that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should explore other available modes to achieve effective service; otherwise, service may amount to an empty formality.

The Court also applied the principle that an assessment should not be concluded without a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing.

The Court accepted that uploading notices to the GST portal constituted a valid mode of service, but considered the absence of any response a reason for the officer to explore other modes available under Section 169(1), preferably RPAD.

The first respondent’s admission that no personal hearing had been provided supported the conclusion that the assessment had been made without a sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.

In view of these circumstances, and the petitioner’s submission that it had paid approximately 65% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the orders and remitted the matter.

The petitioner was directed to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of receiving the judgment; upon filing, the officer must give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and then decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.

The first respondent was also directed to instruct the bank to release the attachment and defreeze the petitioner’s account immediately upon production of proof of the stated payment.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.